I recall personally deleting and asking for oversight of an identifiable picture of a clearly underage person in a similar context, where the images were the basis of an internet meme. The picture was oversighted; the article on the meme itself was almost unanimously deleted from WP.
The courts may be fools. We are not. (at least not as often). David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:39 PM, <wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Samuel Klein wrote: >> To Robert's point below, >> >> I would appreciate a serious discussion on Commons, grounded in this >> sort of precedent, about what a special concern and stronger >> justification for inclusion might look like. An OTRS-based model >> release policy? How does one prove that one really is the >> photographer / the person in a photograph? >> >> There was the start of a discussion about this here, but I haven't >> seen further discussion recently: >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Consent_clarification >> > > Do you not avoid the problem by simply not accepting photographs from > unapproved sources? Just because someone genuinely could upload a > photograph of themselves and/or partner engaged in some sexual activity > is no reason to accept such images. > > Flickr delete accounts all the time for revenge postings. Where private > photos of ex-partners are uploaded to flickr and posted into the adult > groups, sometimes with contact data. > > A problem with images on wikimedia is that they have a free license, > which gives them a life outside of wikimedia. I'm reminded of the 14 yo > that had a self portrait used as the art work for a porn DVD, the > distributor saying that it was found on a PD image site. > http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Flickr-user-Lara-Jade-has-images-stolen-5442 > > Also last week in the UK a Press Complaint Commission said that "A > magazine did not intrude into a young woman's privacy when it published > photos that she had uploaded to social networking site Bebo when she was > 15 because the images had already been widely circulated online." > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/13/bebo_loaded/ > > So one may find that once an image is widely circulated on the internet > the person featured losses any rights to privacy over such images. > > Surely one could source representative images from the porn industry. > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l